BRE v Comptroller of Income Tax: Income Tax Assessment Dispute

In BRE v Comptroller of Income Tax, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by BRE against the decision of the Income Tax Board of Review. The Board had dismissed BRE's claim that he was not an employee of TGS and was therefore not liable for income tax on payments made to him by TGS. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that BRE was indeed an employee of TGS, despite holding an employment pass under Subjunctive, a company he owned. The court ordered costs to be taxed if not agreed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to be taxed if not agreed.

1.3 Case Type

Tax

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed BRE's appeal, holding that he was an employee of TGS and liable for income tax despite lacking a TGS employment pass.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Comptroller of Income TaxRespondentGovernment AgencyJudgment for RespondentWon
Shawn Joo Jian Hua of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Law Division)
Charles Li Yourui of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Law Division)
BREAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Shawn Joo Jian HuaInland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Law Division)
Charles Li YouruiInland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Law Division)
Lazarus Nicholas PhilipJusticius Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. BRE is an Australian citizen.
  2. TGS is an Australian company.
  3. TGS offered BRE a position as Project Development Manager in a letter dated 4 March 2011.
  4. BRE accepted the offer and signed a contract with TGS on 4 March 2011, with work commencing on 4 April 2011.
  5. BRE was served with notices to pay tax on income from TGS between 2012 and 2016.
  6. Payments from TGS were made to Subjunctive, a Singapore-incorporated company owned by BRE.
  7. BRE held an employment pass issued by the Ministry of Manpower, listing Subjunctive as his employer.
  8. BRE could not produce any contract between TGS and Subjunctive, claiming it was an oral contract.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BREvComptroller of Income Tax, HC/Tax Appeal No 16 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 77

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Subjunctive incorporated in Singapore
TGS offered BRE a position
BRE signed a contract with TGS
Commencement of work stated in contract
Start of period when BRE was served with notices to pay tax
End of period when BRE was served with notices to pay tax
Income Tax Board of Review dismissed BRE’s claim
Income Tax Appeals No 11 to 15 of 2016
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Employee vs Independent Contractor
    • Outcome: The court held that BRE was an employee of TGS, not an independent contractor.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Taxability of Income
    • Outcome: The court held that income earned by a resident is taxable even if the resident did not have the requisite licence for his work, unless it offends public policy.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Review of Income Tax Assessment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Income Tax Assessment

10. Practice Areas

  • Tax Law
  • Tax Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Employment Contract
  • Project Development Manager
  • Employment Pass
  • Income Tax
  • Tax Assessment

15.2 Keywords

  • Income Tax
  • Employment
  • Singapore
  • Tax Assessment
  • Employment Pass

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Income taxation95
Contract Law40
Employment Law30
Administrative Law5

16. Subjects

  • Taxation
  • Employment Law